Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203.

664 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Shawn William Lampi Minn. Ct. App. 2020
And because “[t]he function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them[,]” our court has no authority to subpoena witnesses.
In re the Billie V. Darkenwald Revocable Trust, dated January 21, 1983, restated February 5, 1999, as amended, … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Custody of: C.A.M., Cody A. Myers v. Jessica D. Cook, n/k/a Jessica D. Hartger, County … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(stating that appellate courts “neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness credibility”).
Jessica Lin Love, n/k/a/ Jessica Lin Lopez Love v. Edward Love, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”).
In re the Marriage of: Jonathon Henry Ortner v. Margaret Eleanor Ortner Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(explaining that this court exceeds its scope of review if it “usu rp[s] the role of the [district] court by reweighing the evidence and finding its own facts”); n.2 (Minn. 1979) (noting that an appellate court’s responsibility is to correct e
In re the Custody of: R. T. R., C. T. R., and S. C. T. R., Robby Romero … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Christina L. Suhsen v. Karl W. Suhsen Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 199, 202 & n.3 (Minn. 1997) ().
Christian David-Robert Wille v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”).
In re the Marriage of: Michael Dennis Dewar v. Luanna Sue Gary Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Gena Maria Kramp v. Clayton Henry Kramp, Cass County, Intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2020
This court exceeds its scope of review if it “ usurp[s] the role of the [district] court by reweighing the evidence and finding its own fac ts.”
In re the Marriage of: Peder Kristian Rogich v. Denise Lynn Rogich Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Larry Allan Keeler v. Michelle Marie Keeler Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. William Edward Hunt Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In the Matter of the Application of: Hollis John Larson for a Change of Name Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Tony Flattum v. Pro Tech Restoration, Inc., Brian Jovan Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that “[t] he function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying err ors and then c orrecting them ”); Lake George Park, L.L.C. v. IBM Mid-America Emps.
State of Minnesota v. Hector Garcia Garcia Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”).
In re the Estate of: Pauline Mary Serpico, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988).
In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: J. R. S. and T. A. S., … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
4 The district court credited the guardian ad litem’s testimony, noting that her opinions were “well-founded and supported by the facts.” A determination of the best interests of a child involves credib ility determinations, In re Tanghe , and this court defers to the cred ibility determinations of the district court
In re the Matter of: Awal Ismael Hussein v. Lensa Mohamed Musa Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Benjamin Walter Eidem v. Debra Louise Eidem Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Mary Elizabeth Moline v. Daniel Robert Moline Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Matter of: Minn. 2019
In re the Estate of: Richard John Keim, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Sokkhan Ka v. Mai Yia Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2019
9 Sefkow v. Sefkow , 10 (Minn. 1988) (“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”).
In re the Marriage of: Diana Lynne Neumann, n/k/a Diana Lynne deVries v. Harvey Mark Neumann Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that the court of appeals is not permitted to find facts).
Eric Robert Mitzuk v. Davlyn Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Aaron Olson v. Cortney Nichole Mathis Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Fr. William Graham v. Terrance Jerome Davis, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Our function “is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.” Sefkow v. Sefkow
In re the Custody of: B. L. F. Cherries Chamberlain v. Neil Fleahman Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988).
In re the Marriage of: Faye Karen Bernstein (A18-1402) (A18-1408) v. Scott Tomi Gilbert (A18-1402) (A18-1408) Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Deference must be given to the opportunity of the trial court to assess the credibility of the witnesses.”
Grace Elizabeth Miller v. Brock Fredin Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Sefkow v. Sefkow , (sta ting appellate courts defer to district court’s credibility determinations).
In re the Custody of: S. K. S. Christian Schut v. Cynthia Schut Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Tonka Tours, d 723, 728 (Minn. 1985) (stating that whether a party acted in good faith is, essentially, a credibility determination); (stating that appellate courts defer to district court credibility determinations); (stating that “[q]uestions of .
In re the Matter of: David Allen Engh v. Jennifer Culver, Ramsey County, Intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: David Michael Kedrowski v. Olga Kedrowski Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Al Dressely, et al v. CAL Properties, LLC, d/b/a Inver Grove Auto Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: H.W.-S. and D.T.W., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988).
In re the Matter of: Dennis J. Arvig v. Trudy A. Kawlewski, County of Wadena, Intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Don Modeen v. Meribel Enterprises, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2019
.”); (“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”).
Gabrielle Marie Geraci v. Jack Cyril Maxwell Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(recognizing appellate courts defer to district court credibility determinations).
In re the Marriage of: Yusuf Haji-Ismail Ali v. Myrna Wati Ali, County of Scott, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that a reviewing co urt defers to the 3 Father also appears to argue that the district court made inap propriate findings on the best-interests factors and failed to apply them judiciously.
Olimpia Onofre Cedillo, et al v. Herbert Azubuike Igbanugo, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
And to the extent that they would like to retry the case before us, we note that as an appellate court we are not permitted to usurp “the role of the trial court by reweighing the evidence.” Sefkow v. Sefkow
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: M. Z., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Here again, the district court is in the best position to make credibility determinations.4 Sefkow v. Sefkow , (stating that appellate courts defer to distri ct court credibility determinat ions).
In the Matter of: Naomi Rae Marx v. Matthew Douglas McArthur Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Amy Alyssa Post v. Samuel Morton Post, III Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Kimberly Kay Seidel v. Trevor Carlton Seidel Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(we defer to the district court’s credibility determinations); d 181, 183 (Minn. 1966) (it is not the appellate court’s role to find facts).
Landmark Cmty. Bank, N.A. v. Klingelhutz 927 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Landmark Cmty. Bank, N.A. v. Klingelhutz 927 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Sefkow v. Sefkow , , 210 (Minn. 1988) ; Gada v. Dedefo , , 514 (Minn. App. 2004).
In re the Marriage of: Beth Ann Bersaw v. Richard George Bersaw Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Cody Douglas Thurstin Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then corr ecting them.”
In re the Marriage of: Marcus Shuntae Pope v. Angela Kelly Pope Minn. Ct. App. 2019